AR Pistol Brace = SBR with new ATF rules :(

[jdgabbard]

So does having a buffer tube, make an AR upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches attached to an AR lower, an SBR?

Thats the million dollar question. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything suggesting one way or the other but for the length of pull topic. I _THINK_ straight buffer tubes are still a go. But who knows with this hot mess....

[KenH]

Reading a bit on the ATF website I see "This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. "

I've not been able to find a definitive answer as to which stabilizing braces are considered legal. It seems the result is there is no way to tell, just allow atf agent to inspect and see how they rule. Of course, that ruling might change from day to day, and agent to agent.

[lar45]

Okay, I finally finished all 293 pages.

No, having a bugger tube does not make it a SBR.
If the buffer tube has anything that looks like a stock, or has added material not neccesary to the function of the firearm, then it can become a SBR.
Also if you have any part that extends the buffer tube rearward, then it becomes a SBR.
If you have the folding stock accesory, so you can fold the buffer tube out of the way for compact storage, then that makes it a SBR. That part was specifically discussed and mentioned several times. I totally dissagree with this part, but it is now part of the rule.

[lar45]

page 269:

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
269



(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

[lar45]

page 270

B. Options for Affected Persons
Persons in possession of short-barreled rifles equipped with a “stabilizing brace”
device have until [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to come into compliance with the NFA’s requirements.
The options are as follows:
Current Unlicensed Possessors
270











1. Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm, thus
removing it from the scope of the NFA.
2. Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF
Form 1 (“E-Form 1”) by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 174 The possessor may adopt the
markings on the firearm for purposes of the E-Form 1 if the firearm is marked in
accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102. If the firearm does not have the markings
under 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102, then the individual must mark the firearm as required.
Proof of submission of the E-Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors.
To transfer an affected firearm to another individual after the date this rule is
published, it must be registered in the NFRTR, and the individual must submit and
receive approval on an Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm,
ATF Form 4; otherwise, the transfer is a violation of the NFA. See 26 U.S.C. 5861(e).
3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be
reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA.
The Department recognizes that the removal of a “stabilizing brace” from a firearm that
was originally received as a “short-barreled rifle” results in the production of a “weapon
made from a rifle,” as defined by the NFA. However, the Department in its enforcement
discretion will allow persons to reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by [INSERT DATE
120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and
will not require the registration of these firearms as a “weapon made from a rifle.”
174 ATF strongly advises that affectedparties use the eFormssystem to lessen the administrative burden in
registering firearms affected by this rule.
271









4. Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
5. Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its
website, www.atf.gov.

[Larry Gibson]

page 111
Nevertheless, after careful reviewand consideration of the comments, the
objective design features of rifles, and the administrative record, the Department does not
adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system in this rule.

It is the criteria on Form 4999 that is/will be used as per the definition if "rifle " as previously posted not thr worksheet itself or the point system.

[lar45]

Reading a bit on the ATF website I see "This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. "

I've not been able to find a definitive answer as to which stabilizing braces are considered legal. It seems the result is there is no way to tell, just allow atf agent to inspect and see how they rule. Of course, that ruling might change from day to day, and agent to agent.

You are absolutely right, it is a very grey area. They give a list of common rifle lengths, weights, and length of pull.
If you wanted to use a stabilizing brace, I would get the shortest fixed length one you could find and then not put a rifle scope on it.

[lar45]

They declined to post an exhaustive list,
The braces are not banned .
Anything that extends the length of the tube will be considered a buttstock. So putting a buttstock on a pistol makes it a SBR.

[jdfoxinc]

(iv) whether the surface area that allows thte weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;

Buffer tube is specifically mentioned.

[lar45]

I watched a YouTube video of forgotten weapons that explains the whole sbr sbs very clearly . Essentially in 1934, congress wanted to ban Handguns in the NFA, in order to limit people from cutting down rifles and shotguns to pistol size, they added in sbr and sbs clauses to the NFA. Appearantly there was considerable pushback on banning Handguns, so they took that part out. Now we're left with the barrel length limits.

[lar45]

https://youtu.be/lsE0naVApPU

[44Blam]

One would think that there may be many new lower receivers that do not have an upper associated with them...

[jdgabbard]

One would think that there may be many new lower receivers that do not have an upper associated with them...

The uppers are not illegal, though I suppose they could get you through constructive intent. Personally, if people start flooding the market with uppers people like me with actual SBRs will reap the benefit. I have a few other configurations I'd like to add to my approved Form 1s.

[makeurownfun]

(iv) whether the surface area that allows thte weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;

Buffer tube is specifically mentioned.

This is what I want to know. So, are they stating that if you remove the "brace", foam pad, or anything on the tube itself, Are they still claiming that you could shoulder the buffer tube? Then claim that it is infact an SBR?

[Larry Gibson]

They declined to post an exhaustive list,
The braces are not banned .
Anything that extends the length of the tube will be considered a buttstock. So putting a buttstock on a pistol makes it a SBR.

Basically, but there are other pistols that do not have a "tube", hence the criteria. Weight & length being the most critical.

[charlie b]

If you own a 'pistol' and a 'rifle' then you should be set for 'normal' use.

If the SHTF then just put the pistol upper on the rifle lower. In those kinds of circumstances anything the feds say will be a moot point.

But, if the 'need' is to go and show off your SBR to the crowd at the local range, then just get the SBR paperwork.

Or am I missing something here (other than normal fed overstepping their bounds since the '30's)?

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, charlie, I think you are missing the fact if they get away with such "bans/taxation' w/o representation simply by executive decree then they will begin to "decree" other firearms as "bad" and do the same to them. You might think not but it's already happening in different states. Take a hard look at how gun control has progressed in England and the British commonwealth and you will see that is exactly what occurred.

[charlie b]

Larry, I understand that part. However, the basic set of rules was set back in the 30's. The emergence of things like bump stocks and pistol braces are just a way to circumvent that old law.

While I don't agree with any of those laws, the use of 'loopholes' to circumvent laws or procedures is bound to be dealt with eventually. Yes, I include the left's work on 'assault' weapon bans in the same category.

FWIW, I think it was clear in the 2nd Amendment that it did refer to military grade weapons, ie, militia level equipment. So, anything that prevents me from owning a mini-gun or M1 Abrams should be unconstitutional.

[elmacgyver0]

It seems a lot of people even here, do not understand the old story about the frog in the pot of water with the heat being gradually increased.

[barnetmill]

Not all pistols with a brace fall under the new SBR regulations. There is a worksheet (form 4999) that is used to determine if the firearm is an SBR. Pay particular attention to the fine print at the bottom of section I.

ATF is supposedly not charging the $200 tax if the firearm is submitted for SBR status in the next 120 days.

Not any more and that is the super big problem. There is no written metric as to what passes. They will discuss the importance of what was in form 4999, but there are no inch measurements. IIRC you are suppose to get your braced pistol approved by ATF. This vagueness is the weakest part of the new ATF law(err final rule). For the ARs you are allowed to remove the brace and specifically the buffer tube is ok since it is needed for the cycling of the gun as stated in their simple 292 or 293 pages final rule explanation. There might be some other standards coming to give some precise metrics for length of pull, length of buffer tube, permissible surface area of brace to shoulder contact, wt of gun, optics eye relief, etc.